Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with the complainant’s planning applications and pre-application planning advice request. This is because the complainant had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council has dealt with his planning applications and request for pre-application planning advice. Mr X says the Council failed to properly communicate with him or discuss the proposed development. He also says the Council was unprofessional and there were long delays. Mr X says he has incurred significant costs because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a government minister. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b))
4. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of the responsible Government minister. The Planning Inspector considers appeals about:

• Delay – usually over eight weeks – by an authority in deciding an application for planning permission
• A decision to refuse planning permission
• Conditions placed on planning permission
• A planning enforcement notice.

5. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X could have appealed to the Planning Inspector if he was unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse his initial planning application. He also could have appealed to the Inspector for non-determination if he was unhappy with how long the Council was taking to decide his applications or if he disagreed with the planning conditions the Council placed on his second application.
8. Mr X has raised many concerns about how the Council dealt with his first application. He says the Council should have communicated with him and allowed him to make changes to the plans. But the issues he has raised are related to the planning decision which could have been appealed. I consider it would have been reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate when someone had a right to appeal to the Planning Inspector, even if the appeal would not have addressed all the issues complained about.
9. Mr X has complained about comments made by a third party which were published on the Council’s website. He has also complained the Council failed to meet with him or properly communicate with him in response to his request for pre-application advice. However, the Council has now redacted comments made by Mr X’s neighbour. It has also refunded the fee Mr X paid for his pre-application advice. I consider it unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add to this or achieve anything more for Mr X in this regard.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had the right to appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman